* Insects, Arachnids, and the Speed of Light & Flight: Real Science Friday co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart discuss locust wings creasing for flight along their veins, and about tarantula feet equipped with nozzles to shot out Kevlar-strength silk to avoid falls, and about the European researchers who claim to have shot neutrinos 450 miles from Geneva to Sasso, Italy at a speed faster than the speed of light!* Locust Wings are WAY More Sophisticated than Expected: According to Creation magazine's Fall 2011 issue, the reason that designers of mini flying robots have not been able to demonstrate good aerodynamics even after imitating the size and shape of flapping insect wings is because, according to research from Oxford, insect wings deform along their vein structures to add flight control. Wow! Cool God!* Tarantulas' Different Need, and Perfect Foot Design: First it was Kevlar-strength silk. Then it was cross-linked glue molecules to catch insects. Now it's nozzle-equipped feet. Real Science Friday has enjoyed talking about the amazing design features of spiders. Now, Creation magazine reports the latest research that shows that tarantulas have many nozzles in the bottoms of their eight feet that shoot out super-strength silk to help stabilize themselves on slippery surfaces because while other spiders are rarely injured in falls, these relatively heavy tarantulas get severely injured even from relatively minor falls.

* Researchers at CERN May Have Shot Out Neutrinos Faster than Light Speed: The European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) this week published a report about neutrinos they shot out of a particle accelerator at faster than the speed of light, from near Geneva, to a lab in Sasso, Italy 450 miles away, with an arrival time 60 nanoseconds earlier than the speed of light. Bob and Fred discuss this possibility, and talk about the star-light and time problem for Big Bang atheists and about a biblical answer for the Christian's star light and time question.

Faster than light neutrinos have been reconfirmed in a second experiment. The part I find incredible is the fact that Einstein made one oversight in E = mc2 and physicists can't figure it out because they assume he thought of everything.

When Leo Szilard told Einstein about incredible energy being produced by nuclear fission Einstein said "Gee, I never thought of that", a second thing that Einstein didn't think about was photon mass and how that mass would be effected by gravity. Neutrinos, having less mass than photons, will travel slightly faster than photons. It's actually a no brainer and physicists are claiming that E = mc2 must be wrong because they still think that Einsteins assumption of zero photon mass is still correct.

It has implications for a YEC cosmology because it shows that light speed is effected by gravity and in the zero gravity areas between galaxies we can predict a faster speed of C.

It has implications for a YEC cosmology because it shows that light speed is effected by gravity and in the zero gravity areas between galaxies we can predict a faster speed of C.

This is unlikely. Andromeda is 2,500,000 light years away, even if light itself could travel ten times as fast as we currently observe, we still should not be able to see Andromeda if the Universe is as young as YEC claims.

This is unlikely. Andromeda is 2,500,000 light years away, even if light itself could travel ten times as fast as we currently observe, we still should not be able to see Andromeda if the Universe is as young as YEC claims.

You are basing your entire assumptive argument on uniformity.... you have absolutely no idea what can or has affected SOL in the past, or in space...

This is unlikely. Andromeda is 2,500,000 light years away, even if light itself could travel ten times as fast as we currently observe, we still should not be able to see Andromeda if the Universe is as young as YEC claims.

Who says the speed of light can't change or hasn't been changed by a 100.000 times or more the present value?

This is unlikely. Andromeda is 2,500,000 light years away, even if light itself could travel ten times as fast as we currently observe, we still should not be able to see Andromeda if the Universe is as young as YEC claims.

I would think that the math would show that gravity is much less than 10 orders of magnitude between galaxies. But, gravitational time dilation is also part of the model so it doesn't rely solely on reduced gravity. OE cosmologists are proposing an infinite speed of light in the moments proceeding the big bang to make their model work. So what is their mechanism? And if they don't have one, why is their faith scientific and anybody else who suggests the same thing wrong?

Who says the speed of light can't change or hasn't been changed by a 100.000 times or more the present value?

I work in optics and I measure the speed of light daily using instruments that operate by sending a pulse of laser light down a 100+ kilometer optical fiber and use the known speed of light to measure the distance and find points of high reflectance in that fiber... The speed of light has never changed in my observations, or in anyone else's, why assume it does? All of the evidence we have points to a constant speed of light in a vacuum, in fact all of the evidence we have points to all physical laws being constant. There is absolutely no reason to assume otherwise.

Who says the speed of light can't change or hasn't been changed by a 100.000 times or more the present value?

I work in optics and I measure the speed of light daily using instruments that operate by sending a pulse of laser light down a 100+ kilometer optical fiber and use the known speed of light to measure the distance and find points of high reflectance in that fiber... The speed of light has never changed in my observations, or in anyone else's, why assume it does? All of the evidence we have points to a constant speed of light in a vacuum, in fact all of the evidence we have points to all physical laws being constant. There is absolutely no reason to assume otherwise.

First - Your hypothesis fails due to the fact that gravitation bends light (i.e. light is shown to bend around the horizon of the sun), therefore its speed IS affected.

Second – You have absolutely NO factual evidence concerning what may or may not affect the speed of light outside of what we have empirically verified. Therefore you have absolutely NO idea if the speed of light is constant outside of your experience.

Third – You have absolutely NO idea of the speed of light outside of recorded history, therefore you have absolutely NO idea if the speed of light is constant outside of your experience.

Conclusion – You are basing your opinion on hypotheses NOT empirical fact; and yet you attempt to promulgate HERE that your OPINION is FACT…

First - Your hypothesis fails due to the fact that gravitation bends light (i.e. light is shown to bend around the horizon of the sun), therefore its speed IS affected.

Without getting into relativity which explains why light curves due to gravity, changing direction is not the same as changing speed. As an example, a satellite can orbit at a constant speed while having it's path bent constantly by earth's gravity.

Second – You have absolutely NO factual evidence concerning what may or may not affect the speed of light outside of what we have empirically verified. Therefore you have absolutely NO idea if the speed of light is constant outside of your experience.

The possible existence of something capable of accelerating light does not preclude the ability to determine if light has changed speed. See the linked post below for an example of what the effect of a changed light speed in the past would be on current observations. If we know what the effect would be, then verifying the absence of that effect is sufficient to disprove the hypothesis, even if we don't know whether there is something that can cause light to change speed.

Third – You have absolutely NO idea of the speed of light outside of recorded history, therefore you have absolutely NO idea if the speed of light is constant outside of your experience.

Conclusion – You are basing your opinion on hypotheses NOT empirical fact; and yet you attempt to promulgate HERE that your OPINION is FACT…

Sorry, but that doesn’t fly.

I posted in http://www.evolution...indpost&p=76569 how we can empirically test that light hasn't changed speed in the past. Basically its just using math to show that the consequences of slowing light is inconsistent with our observations of past events.

As for the OP, it's been determined that equipment problems likely caused the results, not actual faster than light neutrino's. The findings of FTL travel have not been reproduced by others.http://press.web.cer...1/PR19.11E.html

ICARUS experiment at Gran Sasso laboratory reports new measurement of neutrino time of flight consistent with the speed of light...The OPERA collaboration has informed its funding agencies and host laboratories that it has identified two possible effects that could have an influence on its neutrino timing measurement...